tv MONEY With Melissa Francis FOX Business December 15, 2012 12:00am-1:00am EST
to the fire to say if they don't do that then speaker you may not to the revenue. >> exactly we have probably take it more of a step back with the rhetoric. we have democrats with senior places like senator dick durbin who took entitlement reform off the table of our social security liz: we hope you have a good weekend. >> i'm adam shapiro in for melissa francis. here's what's "money" tonight. the great pork giveaway. the senate is ready to vote on a $60 billion package for hurricaneandy aid but guess where a big chunk is going? long term infrastructure
projects. is this going to the people and businesses who desperately need it? plus black box recorders may soon be mandatory in all new cars. a dream for safety regulators and insurance companies but will it leave drivers privacy totalled? we'll explain. party infighting over the fiscal cliff intensifies. one gop congressman is completely breaking rank claiming there is conservative case for raising taxes. he will join us to make his case. because even when they say it's not, it is always about money adam: good afternoon to you. let's take a look at the day's market headlines. an unexpectedly strong rise in november industrial production failed to boost stocks. concern over the fiscal cliff continued to linger. the dow sank 35 points to
end the week. shares of apple got a one-two punch today. iphone 58 debuted in china but to tepid demand. ubs also lowered its price target on apple's stock to 700 bucks down from 780 bucks. what goes up must come down. best buy's shares soared yesterday. its founder was offering up to $6 billion to ke it private but best buy says it has prolonged the time frame for an offer until after the holiday season. shares tumbled more than 14%. on to our top story the senate will vote on a $64 billion aid package for superstorm sandy on monday but the cbo says, nine approximately, just nine billion of that spending will be spent overthe next year. to top it off, a ton of the cash is earmarked for long-term infrastructure spending. wi the fiscal cliff looming, the nation's finances already stretched thin, do we really need another pork-laced spending bill?
here with more is steve ellis, vice president of taxpayers for common sense. appreciate you being with us in new york city tonight. for instance some of the spending in this pork-ladened bill would provide one millio dollars for trees in cemeteries. $4 million for sand dunes at kennedy space center. not beaches up here where they need dunes. $2 million for a new roof at the smithsoni is this bill really a relief bill or pork bill for mem, about of the congress? >> what you find, adam, basically they have caps on overall spending when. they do the emergency supply meant metals all of sudden the caps are irrelevant. all of sudden it is free cash. it is free-for-all for lawmakers trying to get money for the pet projects. you may get the smithsonian roofs may have been damaged by sandy but atime of budget crunch we have to prioritize and only do the most important and critical things. adam: isn't this thing turn voters against members of coress?
we have cars for the fbi but office equipment. i don't reca superstorm sandy taking out washington, d.c. or the fbi headquarters? >> they may have had facilities in the area with vecles destroyed it comes back to. gsa has a lot of vehicles. some will come out of agency's hides. you mentioned those. i point to there is $150 million for fisheries declared a disaster by the secretary of commerce. that is not what happened here in new england. you have the senators from alaska talking about how that money will go for the salmon fishery. that obviously has nothing to do with sandy. adam: that is so far away. will this become part of the fiscal cliff negotiations? could you have john boehner saying to the president we don't want to do this or boehner making the case we need this kind of spending? who stands where on that? i realize it will be going through the senate but where does this stand? >> i don't think house republicans will go for anything nearly this size.
i'm hoping it is kept out of the fiscal cliff negotiations just because it is messy enough as it is. adding in this and all the other permutations that taxpayers will get a really bad deal. what is ironic. what is about the fiscal cliff? $110 billion across-the-board cuts are in 2013, the sequester. this is the $60 billion of extra ending. we're all wringing our hand trying to figure out about $110 billion in cuts. but at the same time they opened up a checkbook for $60 billion much with nothing to do with sandy. adam: let's reverse it. let's go to new york city. i saw better itry tunnel fill with water. mta swallowed 4 to $5 billion unexpected cost to get trains up and running. the money has to come from somewhere. it is appropriate in a disaster like this to turn to the federal government. are these things covered in this bill or is that money squandered? >> there is money for the federal transit administration which would
help mta. there is money in here for the disaster relief fund which will help people in is disaster and future disasters. this will help the flood program because borrowing will have to increase by billions of dollars with this underwater program. there are things that are important and critical and legitimate. the problem there is so much other garbage thrown in here and things n necessary, that it just feeds the voter cynicism as you're talking about. adam: with 40 seconds left does it pass? i never known a bill congress didn't like that they put money into the pockets they could disperse. >> there is good chance it will pass the senate. i don't think anything like this will pass the house and be enacted. adam: since you're from taxpayers for common sense what do this think the common sense legislation. >> this would be largest single supplemental bill we've ever done. a lot more than katrina there are a lot of ones in agra dwat. taking smaller bite to see
where we are and doing it in the future. adam: steve ell, taxpayers for common sense. what is the website? i know you guys put this up on the front page. >> taxpayer.net. we have data looking at president's budget and president's bill and house bill or senate bill. adam: we were talking earlier the cars for the fbi, about $20,000 for the inspector general at fbi. that could give you a nice sonata. inspector general might tool around in nice new vehicle. thanks very much. have a safe trip back to washington. >> thank you. adam: more than 180 of the nation's top economic mind are joining together for a common cause. they're warning congress that raising taxes on anyone, on anyone, as part of a fiscal cliff deal would have devastating consequences to the american economy. so will d.c. hear that message? joining me for more on this, the man behind the campaign the executive vice president of the national taxpayers union. and a economist with pioneer investment.
sam, let's start with you. we keep hearing if you tax the wealthy it really doesn't have a negative impact because one, the wealthy take tir tax refund and save them. they don't spend them. is that not accurate? what is the negative implications of taxing the wealthy? >> i think anytime you take money away from anybody they are obviously going to have less money. the quesestion whether the wealthy spend their money or save it, i think that is a tougquestion to answer, because if you look at where people will be taxed, a lot of people will be spending money. they will not save it. i think it is assertion that is dangerous assertion to make. adam: pete from the national taxpayers union executive vice resident. a lot of what the president says, if you tax couples making $250,000 or more, individuals at 200,000 or more, you're only taxing the wealthy. there was a study that shows a third of that actuall is small business and you're passing that on to small businesses which employ over 50% of the people in the country. so there is a negative
impact to taxing people in those threshol without protecting those who are small businesses but count that as income, correct? >> yes. it's a negative impact on job creation. it's also ironically a negative impact on the very thing the president says he wants more of, which is consumer spending. this was reported in "the new york times" actually in 2010 that one-third of all consumer spending comes from people making $210,000 or more. so you're getting a double hit to the economy. adam: but how do you make the american people, because the survey seemed to at least, be in favor of what the president says because the message has been just tax the top 2%. that seems to be resonating, right or wrong with voters. how you correct that message or change that message? >> well, i think the voters are closer to the position of fiscal restraint than him people give them credit for because in similar polls they will also answer questions such as majorities think there ought to be a
t more spending restraint in washington. majorities say that the ovall tax burden when asked hypothetically should be far less than whathe president is asking for. so you have a lot of conflicting data there but i still think the american people's instincts here are not to trust washington when they say, don't worry, we're only going to tax that other person behind the tree. adam: sam, i'm going to let you talk about that because what pete just said, don't worry, we'll only tax those people. the fact is howard dean a week ago screaming and yelling from the mountaintop taxes have to go up on everybody. that is not what the administration is saying. is that where we're headed if they get increase on top 2%? would we see increases on middle class and lower income levels? >> this case i think howard dean was telling the truth. the bottom line is tax revenue they would raise from the people making $200,000 a year or more doesn't even put aent in
the federal budget defic. and if we look at the spending that is projected to happen on medicare, social security and medicaid, as the baby boomers retire you have a major spending problem. adam: let's put it in numbers people understand, what you just said. if we tax the top 2%, this comes from cbo, ernst & young verified it, $70 you would raise. we have deficits of 900 billion or trillion dollars. taxes go up on everyone else or we start cutting. sam that is accurate or not? >> absolutely correct. even if you leavall the tax increases in place that are scheduled to happen, that still does not cure the budget deficit. it only cuts it in hal so we have a spending problem. adam: we have a spending problem. pete, i will give you the last word on this. hess corely our revenue tax revenue is 17% of the gdp. our spending is 24% of gdp on trajectory of roughly 20%
gdp you can't do that. taxes have to go up? are you saying xes have to go up or we need to hold taxes where they are and cut spending drastically? >> we need to cut spending not only drastically, we need to reform programs driving spending titlements. we also need to reform the tax system in the right you way. short term revenue raising expedience, taking away certain deduction for il and gas company to get a few more dollars into the treasury, that is very shortsighted. it over looks the fact we need to reform the entire tax system across the board. you do that, you broaden base, lower the rates, you will bring more revenues into washington through a sounder economy. that's the way to get revenues raised along with selling off goverent assets and the like. that's the way you keep from hurting job creation and when you couple that with spending restraint, you have balance over the long term. sustainablebudgeting. adam: gentlemen, we know the negotiations, as john boehner said, there are two
airports in ohio or cincinnati and telephone lines. the president can reach out to him if he wants to have a discussion. i know we'll keep talking about it. we appreciate you both being here with us as we look what will head our way with tax increases and spending cuts and fisl cliff. have a great evening, guys. >> y too. >> thank you very much. adam: hundreds of u.s. troops along with patriot missile batteries on the way to turkey. now is this a sign that syria's escalating crisis is about to take a turn for the worst? the latest fallout from the middle east is coming up. plus foreign companies fight to get into the investing game in cuba. but, all u.s.usiness can do is watch from the sidelines due to a 50-year-old trade embargo. new findings reveal just how badly u.s. businesses are missing out. more "money" is coming up.
there is no mass-produced human. every human being is unique. and there is one store that recognizes it. the only place in the world you'll find the extraordinarily comfortable sleep number experience. an exclusive collection of innovations that totally individualize your sleep. perfectly comfortable pillows thatdjust to your size and shape. temperature-balancing bedding. dual warmth comforters.
all designed around the sleep number bed: a bed with dual-air technology that allows you to adjust to the support your body needs. each of your bodies. in the name of human individuality: the sleep number collection. discover how our sleep professionals can individualize your sleep experience. exclusively at one of our 400 sleep number stores nationwide. sleep number. comfort individualized. this holiday season, give the gift that's magical: the innovative airfit adjustable pillow at special 30% savings. adam: the u.s. is escalating its involvement in the syrian crisis, sending patriot missile batteries to turkey plus 400 ground troops. it is all part of a nato effort to protect turkey from possible missile attacks coming from syria. how much further could the u.s. military be dragged into a region unraveling by
the day? we want to ask peter brookes, senior fellow at heritage foundation. are we getting a quack mire sending troops, 400 of them and the patriot missile batteries? >> no, i don't think so. this makes sense. it is symbolic for the turkey, major ally in that part of the world. in case assad regime fires missiles into turkey or fired at the rebels and end up in turkey. there has been a lot of stuff going on along the border. this will protect turkey, our nato ally, from attack. adam: will take several weeks to set up the patriot missile batteries. >> that's right. adam: if they need the batteries to protect them do they have time for that? isn't the assad regime on its last leg now? >> that's a good question. these are american units coming from places like germany and netherlands. i was surprised it might
take the end of january. that's reason i said it was symbolic saying we're sporting them. who knows what will happen in syria over the next couple weeks or months or even before these batteries are in place. there could be certainly some problems due to the lack, this vulnerability they think is developing for turkish airspace and turkish sovereignty. adam: turkey is an ally. they are a member of nato. they have a strong army. syria, on the other hand, as we said, the rebels are aligned with islamic powers that may not be friendly to the united stes. it sure looks as if this is, at least gives a open door, a foot, not a toe into turkey should we need to have a greater force on the border with syria. wouldn't that be a logical conclusion? >> that is something to think about but i don't think we're going there. i don't think this association is going there. adam, they have 20 months to do something. they have done basically nothing. they recently recognized consortium of groups called the syrian national council
as the legitimate representatives of the syrian people b we haven't done much. 40,000 people have died. four million have been displaced. we're 20, 21 months into this sort of thing. so i don't think this administration is going to do much in terms of that. what i'm really concerned about, we all want to see the assad regime go but what comes next? has this administration started to shape the future of syria? it's a very important country. an ally of iran. it's strategically located in that part of the middle east. it has pad past in the, ties with israel, t possibility of hostility there. war with turkey. there is lot of things to think about. adam: when you pose that question who comes next, we know who came next in egypt. then tomorrow we have the vote on the referendum for a constitution which seems highly unpopular with the egyptians yett is an islamist-backed sharia law constitution. sound if we don't win in any way, whether egypt or syria
or turkey? >> adam, how is that arab spring thing working for you? i don't think it is going well for the united states. we're almost two years into it. look at libya, benghazi. overflow into places like mali where al qaeda is controlling territory. egypt, bahrain, yemen, syria. the place, the place is really a mess and i don't think the administration's policies have been very effective. they oversold what they thought would happen in this part of the world. we have real challenges to american interests right there right now. adam: i don't know if you can answer this question in 30 seconds if you were president obama with egypt and syria falling apart, what do you do? >> oh gosh in 30 seconds. i don't know how you talk about that but you've to be proactive as opposed to reactive. you can't allow these things to kind unfold without taking, taking measures, economic, diplomatic, potentially militariliry little to shape the future
of american interests in that part of the world. i can't go through all that in 30 seconds. you can't be reactive but you need to be proactive not assuming things will go your way. adam: peter brookes. hopefully we have a discussion in the future and things don't actually deescalate and become more of a problem in syria. have a great weekend. >> absolutely. happy holidays. adam: time for the fuel gauge report. epa announcing the strtest rule for sot pollution in 50 years. that is emitted by power plants and diesel engines. emissions tightened by 20%. the standards go into effect in 2018. petro china taking a $2.2 billion stake in a canadian natural gas oject. it follows on the heels of chinese oil giant cnooc and its $15 billion purchase of canadian oil sand operatetory, nexen. natural gas futures are in the longest slide since january. they settled down for the 7th straight session. forecasters say unusually
warm temperatures likely won't break until the end. month, lowering the outlook for natural gas demand. positive signs for the u.s. and chinese manufacturing sectors helped give a boost to oil prices. crude settled up close to 1% at $86.73 a barrel. we'll go to a place that is warm after this, cuba. just 90 miles from the u.s. shorelinbut it may as well be on the moon for u.s. business. a new port reveals how the cuban embargo is shutting business out of a huge investing opportunity. the man behind this study explains why coming up. plus safety regulators are expected to mandate black box recorders in all new vehicles. w am i going to speed? how are we going to speed? will it cost you personal privacy? is it out the window? details coming up on that. do you ever have too much money?
[beep] [speaking foreign language] [heart beating] [heartbeat continues] [faint singing] [heartbeat, music playing louder] ♪ i'm feeling better since you know me ♪ ♪ i was a lonely soul, but that's the old me... ♪ announcer: this song was created with heartbeats of children in need. find out how it can help frontline health workers bring hope to millions of children at everybeatmatters.org.
adam: we're approaching the bottom of the hour and for 50 years the united states has been unable to trade or do business with cuba. the government, the u.s. government, placed an embargo on cuba after fidel castro seized power but here it is, just 90 miles off the coast of into and my next guest says u.s. businesses are missing out on huge opportunities by the u.s. government inot lifting that embargo. joining me is brookings institutionsenior fellow and international economy professor at university of san diego, richard feinberg. thanks for joining me tonight. >> thank you, adam. adam: i grew up in miami, florida. i grew up with the children of first wave of immigrants of cuba and i had honor or at least privilege going to havana on this very issue. it was a sad state of affairs i saw in havanna. it is really struggling. why make the case we should lift the embargo? would it help the cuban
people or would it help us? >> well, as you said, other companies, european companies, canadian companies, brazilian compies, are investing in cuba. you have a major spanish hotel chain. you have a canadian nickel company. you have nestle, unilever and they're getting first mover advantage on american companies. why do they go to cuba? there is a market in cuba. they're looking at the natural resource, the beaches, the nickel, the good land that is there. they know that the labor is relatively well-educated in it will be relatively competitive. adam: roughly left million people. you have roughly 11 million highly educated people ready to go to work. >> exactly. adam: it is essentially a communist dictatorship and can you trust that kind of government to do business? >> we have to distinguish within the government between the orthodox guys and reformers, those who are looking for change. as we do aund the world, we want to engage behind
those who are supporting reform. so we should be supporting the pro-market elements because we know, as fox knows, freer markets, eventually, leads to freer people. adam: let me ask you about this because there is reform in cuba. we actually ate at a restaurant privately owned. >> exactly. adam: the people that run the restaurant say taxes are high. castro instituteeforms. they take two steps forward but the cuban government takes three steps backward. there is inconsistency to the reforms whereas an investor i would not think i want to take a chance there until there is complete change in government. why would lifting the government make any difference on that? wouldn't that empower raul and that gang? >> you're absolutely right, cuba today is not ready for many companies. the cubans themsees wouldn't let companies in. they themselves are too ambivalent. for many companies that is
high-risk. for the risk-takers that like to be first movers, from canadians to europeans and brazilians they would be interested. the cuba today as you pointed out is the different than the cuba two years ago. a lot more private restaurants. retail outlets. the vernment announced recently they're in favor of private, independent cooperatives forming. adam, interestingly, a major fiscal reform, major fiscal reform. in cuba, one advantage having o party is they don't have a fiscal cliff debate. when the government decides they want to move ahead with tax reform they can just do it and they have done that. so again, of course there is still, many, many problems in cuba. political, economic, no question about it. the legal system is still not something you want to get caught in, i assure you. but what the u.s. government should do as it does worldwide when there is positive movement, we engage supporting the reform factions. adam: while i was in cuba with a trade delegation from north dakota because we do trade with cuba despite the
embargo. foreign products very small. send beans. >> self00 million dollars worth. adam: in order for the government to stop the embargo don't we have to settle dispute as i mentioned children of first wave of refugees that settled from communist cube, settle the land claims hundreds of thousands people have in south florida on properties illegally seized by the cuban government in the late '60s and? i'm not advocating once and for all immediate removal of the embargo. i would say first what we should do is provide support for the emerging private sector, the cooperatives, the restaurants, the small cale retail outlets i spoke about. we should allow american citizens to provide financing for those entrepreneurs, and engage in some trade with them. that would be an important start. we should also allow the international financial institutions, the world bank, the imf, to engage as they do worldwide in support of
positive market-oriented pro-globalization reforms. it would, looking at a gradual step by step process here. adam: all right. mr. fiber-optic berg, we're 50 years and counting. i don't think we've taken the first step yet but sure looks there will be change coming in our lifetimes in the relationship between the united states and cuba. thank you very much, sir. you have a great weekend. >> been my pleasure. thank you, sir. adam: black box recorders will soon be coming to new cars everywhere if safety regulators get their way but is your right as a driver, your privacy, being ditched by the side of the road? i am going t weigh in on this one. i like to speed. it's a problem. a tax rift growing between speaker boehner and senate minority leader mitch mcconnell. one gop congressman is already breaking rank with his party. why he says there is conservative case for increasing your taxes. pyle "piles of money" coming up
adam: the next time you floor it while driving along the highway you may want to think twice. there is increasing chances your car comes with one of these. it's a black box. even though it can help determine the cause of an accident it can also record just how fast you're going if you drive from new york to cleveland on occasion and you're allowed to go 70 miles an hour in ohio but you might go 85. i'm t saying i do that. along with lots of other
data. if your car doesn't have it now, the government is pushing to have the backs boxes installed in new cars in 2014. does this give the government the key to invade in persosonal pvacy we'll turn to more on this lauren fix. the car coach. i'm a studebaker guy. you're a ford shelby person. >> yes. adam: your daughter is named shelby. >> yes, she is. adam: boxes are on 93% of the cars. they're tied into airbag system, right. >> they're tied into seatbelt as well. if you have audi or mercedes you're one of lucky few manufacturers that don't have them. 93% of the cars on the road have that. since the '90s gm started doing it. if you think about why they're even there, why would you even have it? if you had a toyota during the toyota debacle that was information toyota didn't want to share. that is your pernal privacy information. adam: for instance i was alluding to someone who i know may be speeding on the ohio turn bike. >> right. adam: wh would own the
information? or information the way my cell phone transmits data and snitches on me? >> there is privacy issue. information belongs to you. fourth amendment rights. it is your car. it is way you drive. would you want to give manufacturing up? you're not supposed. fourth amendment rights written in the bill of rights says you don't have to give up information. what if you are pulled over by the police officer. and 15 points of information become available? i will have to plug you into the onboard diagnostics underneath your dash. look at that. you were speeding. >> you can buy the devices to plug in for the diagnostics. they're 100 bucks. >> right. adam: are they doing that? >> no they're not. progressive insurance has the plug you can buy it. do you wear your seatbelt. do you speed? what is yo driving like. they will offer you a discount. especially if you're not a speeder. adam: willing to say progress he have, by the way based in cleveland, ohio, you can tell i'm a cleveland fan. you're making a deal willing
which progressive. essentially getting discount. progressive is paying you for the right to collect the information. the case for nissan leaf i got to test drive in tennessee a few years ago. no, we did not eed. >> can't speed in the car. adam: electric. the torque is pretty good. >> they're cool cars. adam: but they had computer system black boxes transmitting data. that nissan was collecting so they could improve the vehicle. that crossed kind of a gray area for a lot of people. >> right. as far as collecting information, service bulletins. recalls. we're having inherent problem across particular model or particular brand, makes a ton of sense to allow them access to the information. it will help you and other owners of that make and model. however i don't want the government to have information the way i drive. it is not a gps. they don't know where you're going. they do know if you wear the seatbelt. th belongs to you or the car manufacturer to share the information. to have that available to
the government is issue to me. aaa --. ad: they are against this they want privacy. aaa come out said they want privacy guaranties with these devices. >> i definitely agree wh that. i want privacy guaranties. with 15 points of information you could increase to more. how would you know. you wouldn't know until you get a speeding ticket in the mail. maybe you have a problem and get letter for court. at what point is there line in the sand? at what point do you want government intervention? at what point are you wiing to give up this information. that's why there needs to be rules and regulations before we put black boxes in everything and put a blanket over it all. adam: i will finish this. i learn my lesson and i promise never to do it again. lauren fix. i have to ask you real close. packard or cord? >> i love cords. packards. adam: anybody that loves cars is after may own heart. we'll speak to you a little later. >> thank you. adam: in the ukraine this is what happens when
politicians break rank wth their own par. fortunately things haven't come to that yet here in the united states. one republican congressman is bucking his party on the fiscal cliff. why he says raising tax revenue is the conservative thing to do. he joins us to explain next. at the end of the day, it's all about money
adam: christmas is less than two weeks away but the bad news? the fiscal cliff is not far behind. house speaker boehner and president obama met last night to discuss possible solutions for averting disaster but so far nothing. it's clear compromises have to be made but one gop congressman is going out on a huge him. he is ditching grover norquist's tax pledge to back raising revenues. he says it is the conservative thing to do. joining us to explain why, virginia congressman scott regal. thanks for being here, sir. i should point out you told voters before re-ection, february or january of this year, you had signed grover norquist's tax pledge and now it no long are made sense. why doesn't it make sense?
why did you change your mind? and i can imagine you're feeling lot of heat from colleagues in congress? >> i will be happy to answer that directly but i first want to express our deep condolence to the families who lost a loved one today. the anguish is really unimaginable. now onto this important topic. i did distance myself or remove myself as a signer of the pledge back in february. the second direct of virginia sent a businessman to washington. overwhelmingly we have a expense problem. any agreement i vote for must reduce spending. with that said, adam, i've done analysis of tax revenue side of these things. we haven't been at this level of revenue since 1959. adam: i will give the numbers. it is really simple. on average the government collects about 17% tax revenue to gdp we're spending 24% on average of
gdp. >> that's correct. adam: it doesn't add up. that's why you said we have to raise taxes? >> well, no it is more, there is more nuanced than that. the level of spending that we ourselves as republicans have voted for is actually higher than the level of revenue that we've locked ourselves into as a rest of the americans for tax reform pledge. and to me, certainly what it means to be conservative among other things is that we pay our bills. and that we, we vote to have the same level of revenue that we ourselves voted for in expenditures. so, that is the critical distinction. and of course it means, part of this agreement absolutely must have sharp reductions in spending. that's why i'm pleased to stand with the speaker. i think he has done the right thing by putting revenues on the table provided of course they're in the right ratio to expense cuts. adam: december 12th, you sent this letter, i will quotfrom it to the colleagues in the congress. we need to examine what it
means to be fiscal conservative. in addition to fighting for small government it means paying for the size and scope of government for which we have voted. we hr this message so often from both side. they might raise taxes but then they continue to raise spending to an even greater amount. how do you break that cycle? because most people i think, in the citizenry don't believe it will ever be broken? >> well, unless there's really a structural aspect to this to where the expenses are truly tied into incremental revenue generated through tax reform it will lose my support. i am making the case, it is not easy to thread this needle, that expenses must come down sharply but, we ourselves i think within our own conference have a really fiscal issue that we have to deal with. the tax code layered on top the american for tax reforms
pledge, that says you can change the tax code but you can't collect one more dollar. we've locked into revenue. pren it yields 16.9%. we haven't run our country on that since 1959. there are 48 stars --. adam: i interviewed congressman kines, the democrat, talks very similar way you talk. are you two, we don't hear your voices. we hear eric cantor, john boehner. how about you guys rising to the fold? is there movement to get this debate going forward? >> well, i think so. i am a fiscal conservative. i voted for the republican study committee budget which reduced spending much sharper than the house republican budget that got so much attention in the elections. so i'm ready to cut spending. my votes reflect, my deep resolve to put ts country on better fiscal track. but as a businessman i go where the numbers lead me and a careful examination of our budget leaves me with no other conclusion mathematically defensible that we have to raise
revenue a bit just to, just to pay for the level of spending that we as republicans have voted for. adam: congressman riegle, thanks for being with me. you keep referring to yourself as businessman. i refer to you as a ford dealer. that is honor in my book because i'm a car nut. you should have sold stupid bakers. but you probably wouldn't be congressman if you sold studebaker. >> we're proud of the brand. thank you very much. adam: thanks very much, sir. be well. remember the 80-year-old woman who did this? tried to restore an historic fresco of jesus? now she is trying her hand at oil paintsings. she is no picasso but you won't believe how many people are lining up to buy he work because you can never have too much money.
adam: time for a little bit of fun with spare change. we're joined by fox news contributor and freedomworks outreach director, jean borelli, a attorney joey jackson. first up, this got a lot of attention when this happen. the artist o famously botched this restoration of this fresco of jesus christ is selling her own original painting. looks pretty good. up for auction on ebay. so far 30 bids have been placed. it is going for $800. the proceeds go to a
catholic charity. what do you think? will she get the 800 or even more? >> perhaps. this poor woman. i feel bad. she was trying to do the right thing. perhaps she went to confession and her penance was to do something for charity. the money is going to charity and will be for a good cause. adam: the message for forgiveness, this is a perfect, what is the word, not a novelty. >> mea culpa. adam: it is a homily. >> why feel bad. i feel great. you know that expression, lemon aids from lemons? who would have thing it, right at the time she was being excoriated for this. now making money. people are buying it. if there is someone watching from the met. make sure you don't let joey in. he might do sething to the paintings at the met. we'll let this picture go. i have a feeling we'll see more in the coming years.
moving to china and the chinese nightclub that take a look what they did in their renovation. that is actual floor of solid gold. it is 660 pounds or $18 million worth of gold bars that people are just walking over. what do you think? would you ever like to walk on gold? >> that is a lot of money to be moonwalking on. it's, not something we're going to see in new york city, that's for sure. adam: this is the city where you could eat gold on chocolate cake, you remember that? >> yeah. adam: to walk on gold bars. >> to think about that, adam, and potentially dance on gold bars, nonsense! come on. people are starving in the world. have a little respect and decency put gold where it belongs, in people's pockets. adam: a little bit opulent, don't you think? >> a little bit. adam: just a lile bit. here is another one you want to check out, wal-mart and kroger among two dozen other bidders trying to buy hostess. liquidation sale may generate up to one billion
dollars. a standoff last month with union employees forced hostess to liquidate its assets. some might say the was management'sorrid control of the company that forced them into bankruptcy. wal-mart could be exclusive maker of twinkies? >> i'm on my way there. i want my twinkies. go to wal-mart. >> no more black market. >> you're in really good shape. you never did twinkies. >> well, you know, whatever floats your boat. >> the folks at wal-mart have been successful worldwide. could you buy them at your citgo gas station? for what would just be a wal-mart? >> you never know. it is about capitalism and something that is very popular with people. a lot of peopleavoiding the twinkies. remember when they said that they were going to go out of business. they are very popular. >> a spare change update on a
story that science-fiction people will love. you remember th death star? the moon sized death star in star wars? there are now 25,000 signatures, which mean that they hit the threshold which requires a response from the obama administration. according to nerds who want to do this, $852 quadrillion to build. is that all? >> spending in our country, maybe we should get used to seeing such things. [laughter] >> using the obama administration to respond? if you've got an additional 25,000 signatures, they would always respond. >> we can do so until 2014 or 2016. >> if it is the end of the world on dcember 21, they don't have to buildt,